Published AAO appeal decisions

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A digital health communications influencer and public health educator sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two criteria met; the AAO on appeal reconsidered and found insufficient evidence for the high salary criterion, leaving petitioner below the three-criterion threshold.

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

Business professional in financial technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one required criterion (leading critical role) out of three needed; original contributions lacked major significance and salary was not substantially higher than comparable positions.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten evidentiary criteria after multiple appeals. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and reconsider, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and did not identify legal errors in prior decisions.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

AI researcher and CEO sought EB-1A classification claiming four criteria; two were met. Motion to reconsider challenged findings on original contributions and high salary. AAO upheld prior dismissal, finding motion did not establish error in law or policy application.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

An information security analyst in IT and cybersecurity sought EB-1A classification. She claimed four criteria across proceedings. The AAO found membership and salary criteria unmet and reserved analysis of two others. Aggregate review showed no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.